The premise of these cameras is that the operating LEOs control sharing. If you assume the federal government is going to ignore those controls extralegally, then ALPRs themselves aren't acceptable. The red line you're proposing here isn't coherent.
Again I want to be clear that there's a difference between "bad idea" or "bad public policy tradeoff" and "red line". I believe it's pretty clear that when something is a live controversy with no clear winner in a municipality like Oak Park, whatever else it is, it isn't a "red line".
> I believe it's pretty clear that when something is a live controversy with no clear winner in a municipality like Oak Park, whatever else it is, it isn't a "red line".
Shouldn't it be the opposite? A thing is tested when it's put under stress. It's a red line because it's not to be crossed even when the temptation to do it increases.
To me, calling something a "red line" implies that there's near-universal agreement that something is bad (or, at least, on the proper weighing of the underlying values: here, freedom from surveillance vs. law enforcement).
I've never heard of the phrase requiring having a near-universal agreement before.
And I wouldn't say that's a widely held definition. For example:
> The red line, or "to cross the red line", is a phrase used worldwide to mean a figurative point of no return or line in the sand, or "the fastest, farthest, or highest point or degree considered safe." [0]
If adopting these practices means they stick around and people will always argue for bringing them back if we stop... We've crossed the point of no return.
I see your point that something cannot be a red line if it has significant support. Because a red line is something that people universally agree is unacceptable, and if there is even a significant minority who disagree then it's not universal.
Equally, for any horrible thing you will find a minority who support it. Hitler certainl had wide support for deporting Jews, if not worse. Does that mean it can't be a red line? In fact there is no point having red lines that are universally accepted, because they are already, well, universally accepted. There is little point stating that killing babies and eating their flesh whil livestreaming is a red line because no one wants to do it.
I'm not a fan. But I think if people want to seriously organize against its use, they need to be honest and empathetic about what its supporters are looking to achieve. You tell me if the threads on this story are showing that.
And the problem with that premise is the company clearly does not honor the local controls. Ask Evanston about it. I don't understand why you're defending Flock so hard when you can get the same product from e.g. Axon without all the we're-smarter-than-you bullshit from the vendor. Not all ALPRs come with Flock baggage, but you seem to treat them interchangeably.
It's illegal in Illinois. And when the scandal happened, we weren't impacted, because we'd already disabled out-of-state sharing many months prior.
Which was an annoying lift, because Chicago is part of a tri-state area (Wisconsin and Indiana); there are de-facto suburbs of Chicago in other states, and we had to say "no sharing without a phone call authorizing it".
Again I want to be clear that there's a difference between "bad idea" or "bad public policy tradeoff" and "red line". I believe it's pretty clear that when something is a live controversy with no clear winner in a municipality like Oak Park, whatever else it is, it isn't a "red line".